I hesitate to even bring up an open letter religious conservative Sam Weaver published on Wednesday in the conservative website Renew America, which bills itself as committed to the Founding Fathers’ (alleged) biblical principles, since many readers dislike even a hint of political ideology or meaning in the context of alternative history theories, as though interpretations of the past can be divorced from the context in which they are proposed and in which they function. However, Weaver’s discussion provides another perspective on the rivalry and similarity between ancient astronaut theories and the biblical creationism (and/or intelligent design) movement.

Weaver begins his column by praising ancient astronaut theorists for “thinking outside the box” and rejecting what he calls the “conventional wisdom and group think” of modern science and contemporary historians. And what might this conventional wisdom be?

It is naturalism and relativism. Only the natural, physical universe (or set of universes) exists. The spiritual realm is a myth – mere superstitious legend. Angels, demons and miracles do not – indeed, cannot – exist. God only exists in the hearts and minds of men – primarily slack-jawed, snaggletoothed, uneducated men; found mostly in the ample rural areas of the American South and some dying parts of merry old England; although they remain abundant in the great nation-island of Australia. […] In other words, man created God for man's benefit, not the other way around.

I don’t really know what Australia did to deserve its reputation as a Hollywood Western with kangaroos. But, anyway, Weaver continues by saying that science refuses to accept the validity of the Pentateuch, worships the “theology” of evolution, and denies that good and evil have an objective meaning beyond mere opinion. He is obviously unfamiliar with Paul Kurtz’s, Sam Harris’s, and Michael Shermer’s efforts to claim a scientific, teleological basis for contemporary Western (specifically American) ideas of morality. (I don’t agree with this: kangaroos and comets care nothing for your Western morality.) Weaver tells ancient astronaut theorists that they are blinded by the evolutionary-materialist paradigm—apparently unaware of their desire to be raptured up into a postmortem “heaven” in the Orion nebula—and he urges them to recognize that extraterrestrials and pagan gods are in fact demons. “Do this, and your questions will all be answered and everything will become ‘crystal’ clear!! Even, perhaps, the bit about the crystal skulls!” Weaver has been watching recent episodes of Ancient Aliens, for he admits to being perplexed by their discussion of the Nephilim, the giants of Genesis 6:4, the children of the sons of God and mortal women. Following Ancient Aliens, he conflates both groups (the sons of God and the giants) as one and speculates that they may have used “craft” and “emulated” human bodies to better fool human women into having sex and to convince skeptics that the spiritual realm does not exist. After confessing that he does not know what the Nephilim really were, he asserts that “if you study every word and phrase of Genesis from a spiritual viewpoint, all will become quite clear!” This is rather troubling, for Weaver asserts that he has been doing so for more than 22 years, and yet he remains as uncertain about the Nephilim as when he started. He wraps up by praising ancient astronaut theorists for embracing the creationist viewpoint that evolution cannot account for humanity, but he tells them that they have gone wrong by accepting the conventional wisdom that only a materialist explanation can provide answers. Because Weaver refuses to accept that evolution could occur, he therefore demands to know where the aliens came from, a sort of knock-off version of Thomas Aquinas’s proof of God via the argument from first cause. (All effects have a cause, so there must have been a first cause, which can only be God.) “Evolution? Millions, if not billions of years? Does time negate logic? Time cannot negate Truth!!” If one assumes evolution is false, then of course one must conclude evolution cannot apply to other species on other planets. What is fascinating is that Weaver, a creationist, embraces the ancient astronaut theory insofar as its “facts” and “ideas,” specifically anti-evolution (biological and cultural) claims, can be used to support creationism—and here we are almost certainly discussing fundamentalist, literalist creationism, not the more general creationism of the Catholic and mainstream Protestant churches. Ancient astronaut theorists want to breathe new life into old religion by tying it to modern science, however poorly, while creationists want to remake modern science in order to justify their religious beliefs. The end result, however, is always the same: finding new reasons to believe in the literal reality of stories told thousands of years ago. Creationists want to limit this to just one ancient text, while ancient astronaut theorists are happy to provide a cornucopia for the spiritually adventurous, but the end product is envisioned the same way: the union of the spiritual and the material in a world restored to balance between the natural and the supernatural, the physical and the magical. Compare that conservative/fundamentalist view of ancient astronauts with one posted yesterday by James F. McGrath on the progressive Christian website Patheos, in which McGrath discusses ancient astronauts in terms of Gene Roddenberry’s use of the trope in the original Star Trek series (and its sequels), from a class (!) on religion and science fiction (!!):

It allows the exploration of longstanding traditions of storytelling to continue in the framework of our modern scientific worldview. But it also allows the gods to be challenged, rejected, taken on, beaten, and brought down to size. And so if, on one level, doing that posits that such beings as Apollo really exist, on another it allows human beings to outgrow them and treat them as beings like us, and not infallible sources of truth worthy of worship.

Not surprisingly, approaching ancient astronauts as creatures of fiction allows for a more insightful reading of the underlying meanings and motives behind the fantasy, as well as the reasons the myth has such resonance. I find it interesting that both the conservative and progressive Christian readings I’ve pointed to today seek to assert human superiority over the alien-demons, but one does so from a place of fear and a need to believe the demons are real to justify a literal reading of God’s Word, while the other does so from a place of curiosity, looking to see what the story can tell us about our understanding of the intellectual framework in which we live.

I thought most of the "big gun" founding fathers were deists (Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Henry, Franklin, Randolph)..interesting the most religious were the New Englanders not the Virginians..how things have changed..

They were. That's why I put it in quotation marks. It's part of a concerted political effort to impose "Christian nation" ideology on a Constitution intended by design to be neutral to religion. At the time, remember, many Protestants didn't even consider Catholics (like Marylanders) to be real Christians since the Pope was supposedly the Antichrist!

Reply

Shane Sullivan

10/25/2013 11:44:12 am

One of my favorite Thomas Jefferson quotes is relevant to this conversation:

"It does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Gunn

10/25/2013 01:01:18 pm

But the Constitution was designed to be neutral to religion, in part, to protect religion, too...that is, religious freedom. There was still an underlying concern to keep a Christian nation, just then beginning, just as there is that "conservative" urge to keep a Christian nation today.

By the way, I think it is likely the Freemasons DID have a lot to do with the founding of America. Just because there were Freemasons "on the other side" of conflict doesn't mean there wasn't a greater loyalty to the cause of freedom by many of our Founding Fathers. The Freemason influence in Washington DC is easy to see, then and now. Why purposefully underestimate their influence?

And, from above: "I find it interesting that both the conservative and progressive Christian readings I’ve pointed to today seek to assert human superiority over the alien-demons, but one does so from a place of fear and a need to believe the demons are real to justify a literal reading of God’s Word, while the other does so from a place of curiosity, looking to see what the story can tell us about our understanding of the intellectual framework in which we live."

So, one is based on fear, and the other is based on curiosity? Wait a minute, Jason, what about those of us who believe the alien-related stuff is demonic, but delusional...a façade? Where is the fear, then? Where is the curiosity, then? And the seeking of superiority?

Only "The Shadow" knows.

Thane

10/25/2013 01:32:25 pm

They weren't all Deists....however, they were all concerned with the concept of an over reaching state church.

Remember that the Constitution's Bill of Rights spells out the limits of the Federal government. The First Amendment, as it pertains to religion, prohibits the federal government making of any law respecting an establishment of religion and /or impeding the free exercise of religion. Since the various colonies were dominated by differing flavors/sects of Christianity, they did not want the establishment of something like The Church of England.

It was these dominate state churches that persecuted various minor and extreme Protestant sects (i.e. Calvinist, Mennonites, Quakers, and so on.) Methodists, in particular, found fertile fields in the colonies after being badgered in England by the State church.

The Constitution did and does not prevent the individual states from establishing "state" churches or rules around religion and religious practice. It may seem like splitting hairs but it's an important point in understanding that many of the signers of the Constitution were more concerned about the Federal Government running roughshod of state's sovereignty. They viewed the union as a tighter federation of otherwise sovereign states.

But that's a discussion for another day.

For the record, I am a secularist and do not believe the state should involve itself in religion. I am not arguing for the establishment of religion at the individual state levels.

Thane

10/25/2013 01:40:31 pm

i should mention that the Protestant state churches also prosecuted Catholics (as did the Catholic nations did to the Protestant sects)......

Varika

10/25/2013 06:31:57 pm

"But the Constitution was designed to be neutral to religion, in part, to protect religion, too...that is, religious freedom. There was still an underlying concern to keep a Christian nation, just then beginning, just as there is that "conservative" urge to keep a Christian nation today."

Actually, Gunn, the founding fathers didn't want a "Christian nation." A "Christian nation" is one that has a state church that is some brand of Christianity, much as a Muslim nation is one that has a state religion of some brand of Islam. It is a nation that imposes a standard of religion on everyone. Our founding fathers wanted a nation where people were free to BE CHRISTIAN, which is a subtle but distinct difference. Yes, they were trying to protect Christianity with the First Amendment. Most of the men who signed the Constitution probably didn't really conceive of people not choosing to be Christian, in some form or another. Certainly later generations felt that way--I speak of the atrocities visited upon Native Americans, where their children were shipped off to boarding schools and refused the right to speak their own languages or worship in their own ways. But the fact remains that the United States of America, while a nation comprised mostly of Christians (somewhere between 70 and 80 percent of the population, according to various sources such as the 2012 Statistical Abstract from the Census Bureau, and Pew Research), has never been and never will be a Christian nation. I admit to having always been baffled as to why this concept is so threatening to so many Christians. It's not as if the government can INTERFERE with your being Christian, so why does it matter if some brand of Christianity is imposed on those people who wouldn't actually BE Christian even if forced to go to church, anyway?

"By the way, I think it is likely the Freemasons DID have a lot to do with the founding of America. Just because there were Freemasons "on the other side" of conflict doesn't mean there wasn't a greater loyalty to the cause of freedom by many of our Founding Fathers. The Freemason influence in Washington DC is easy to see, then and now. Why purposefully underestimate their influence?"

For once, I actually agree with you--there was undoubtedly a "Freemason influence" on the early US government and on Washington DC as a city, as well. On the other hand, I think that it was more like the kind of influence that Linked In can have on a business, or that Oxford University had on the British Parliament: the coming together of people with ideas and people with skills via a large network. I don't think that it took some vast conspiracy for that influence to be fairly profound, just organizational skills. Nor do I think the influence is either good or bad. It just IS. And if it hadn't been Freemasonry as a connection, it would have been the Sons of Liberty, or the College of William and Mary, or the Right Honorable Society of Wicked Stepmothers' Travelling, Drinking and Debating Society (Men's Auxiliary).

While I would parse the relationship between Genesis 6 and ancient aliens differently than either of your examples, this post helps illustrate the propensity (nowadays) toward linking any discussion of alleged ancient alien visitation with one particular view of creationism (literal, young earth view that demonizes evolution) and one particular hermeneutic of the Bible (literalism). I just don't see the logical or theological necessity of fusing all these things, not to mention embracing any of the elements.

It's a problem that the media helps to perpetuate the "no true Scotsman" fallacy that young earth creationism and extreme literalism are the only "pure" interpretations of the Bible. A billion Catholics worldwide follow (officially at least) the view that in general terms evolution is compatible with the Bible, and yet their views are drowned out by the much smaller group of fundamentalists.

Reply

Gunn

10/25/2013 01:23:14 pm

Interesting. I happen to believe in evolution, but I'm neither a Catholic, nor a young earth creationist or an extreme literalist. I believe it likely God used and uses a lot of symbols mixed with literal stuff just to make things interesting and mysterious. If God had chosen to create a young earth with the appearance of age, it doesn't matter to me. Either God used evolution to evolve first mankind, or He created first mankind as mature adults. To me, evolution is obvious, and God's hand in the universe and in my life is obvious.

(From the Amen Corner.)

Thane

10/25/2013 01:38:35 pm

As someone raised in the Catholic Church, I always viewed evolution as the mechanism God used to create and develop life. Nothing in scripture I've read specified the method God used when He created life....just as He used physics as the tool when He said, "Let there be light!"

But what do I know....I suppose I'll find out for sure when I die...until then, I don't worry about it.

Thane

10/25/2013 01:18:15 pm

"I don’t really know what Australia did to deserve its reputation as a Hollywood Western with kangaroos."

I have three words for you:

Quigley Down Under

Great movie....well, a great Tom Selleck movie

Reply

Graham

10/25/2013 01:53:56 pm

Personally I blame Zane Grey...

Reply

Joe

10/25/2013 01:56:41 pm

Good Selleck movie. But I have always thought Mr. Baseball was his best work

Reply

Thane

10/25/2013 02:12:45 pm

That is a good flick but I'm not really all that sports oriented. I prefer Westerns with Kangaroos...

::wink::

Shane Sullivan

10/25/2013 06:37:22 pm

Don't forget Crocodile Dundee...not really a western, but Mick Dundee is nothing if not a cowboy.

Reply

Leave a Reply.

About Me

I'm an author and editor who has published on a range of topics, including archaeology, science, and horror fiction. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.